Jump to content


Concerns regarding War Thunder- Tanks


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
39 replies to this topic

Khazzadumm #1 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:13 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6579 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011
I recently saw a demo of the so called WarThunder tanks and i have some pretty big concerns. People are saying that WarThunder is going to destroy WoT because it features combined battlefield (ships,planes,tanks), it's more historically accurate (no prototypes and ''make believe'' tanks), has better graphics and historically accurate battles.

Apparently, the main things WarThunder has going for it are bigger tech trees ( 20lvls to wot's 10lvls) meaning faster grind, more realism/ emphasis on simulation compared to WoT's arcade style, matchmaking that isn't ''broken'', a better arty system.

This could cause as much as a third of WoT players to cross over to WT.

However, on a lighter note this doesn't necessarily mean the end of WG, it is always good to have competition as it ensures the constant improvement of one's product/content.

Personally, i think the existing engine needs to be replaced, not only to provide better physics, but also
better graphics, the tanks models, environment  should be more detailed and weather could be added (which would effect things such as visibility, range of sight etc). Additionally, the camouflage system shouldn't make you invisible, but actually hide you.

The battle system should also be changed in the way that WG should add a garage option (if your tank is destroyed, you choose another of the same tier and continue the battle) this would free up space on the server as there would be less simultaneous battles.

So these are my opinions and concerns and i'd really like to hear something from you.

Intrepid95 #2 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20409 battles
  • 411
  • [STAPA] STAPA
  • Member since:
    09-19-2011
In warthunder you can buy upgrades for your tanks just like you can buy gold in WoT. If people want to go WT because of "better graphics" (in which i agree it looks awesome) they are not going there for the game,but for the eyecandy. WoT's engine could be better too yes. I don't think that the combined arms thing is very good for air and tanks, but it could be awesome for air and naval warfare. Even if WT would turn out to be better in anyway that WoT and WoWP and WoWS, i'd play both. WT for the historical aspect and WoT for the other.

krazypenguin #3 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:23 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27097 battles
  • 2,790
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-15-2011
A - this should be in off topic, not general discussion
B - we already have topics for this
e.g.

http://forum.worldof...-thunder-tanks/
http://forum.worldof...rthunder-tanks/

comintogetu #4 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29976 battles
  • 681
  • [51HD] 51HD
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
In the rough cuts I have seen the WT tanks do look better, but I actually have concerns over the gameplay (its barely out of alpha so that may change).

However, I play WoT because you're not going to get bombed to buggery by planes (BF42 anyone?), and that will happen a lot in the combined arms battles in WT

lonigus #5 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:25 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 32631 battles
  • 7,996
  • Member since:
    09-26-2011
Your opinions, but WT tanks are still in pre-alpha. There is nothing except good graphics to be seen atm. Also you are stating that the grind is faster then in WoT, but its actually the oposite in WT. It is way more frustrating and time consuming. That said not even the planes are out of the beta, so hard to make any conclusions in advance.

WG is still in a pretty comfy position and Iam sure when they see the need to push the development of the better graphics and effects with modes and all the other fancy stuff they will surely do it.

I see more potential in WoT atm then in WT tbh. Anyway as I said its to early to say...

Atris2nd #6 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:26 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10725 battles
  • 66
  • Member since:
    12-20-2012
I would say that both WT and WoT will have their respectable playerbase. Mostly because, see, even the Arcade Combat in War Thunder falls under the style of realistic. I'll personally be playing War Thunder for historical accuracy, realism and bigger battles. However, I'd say it's far from the end of WoT. It inspires WG to work harder and, really, some people just like the arcadey feel. Both games are free to play, why make a choice? If you like realism, play WT, if you like arcade, play WoT. I like both so I'll play both.

I do agree on the note of garage battles with WoT, it's an option that it certainly needs. I personally get bored of waiting 15 minutes to unlock a tank I'm currently grinding, and I'd rather be able to play more than 1 tank in a shorter period of time. This would be a great addition to the upcoming 30 player battles with their own, bigger maps(That WG -promised- We'll see how that works out)

smudo1 #7 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19530 battles
  • 1,195
  • [PWNY] PWNY
  • Member since:
    07-03-2011
The engine will be replaced with update 9.0 as far as I know, we're getting the Havoc Physics engine. Should make the game run smoother even on older Computers etc. However, I don't know if this will give an upgrade to the graphics in general too.

Garage battles are also listed in the WoT-Wiki as "in development" - I guess development will go faster once there is some real competition.

About the graphics in general: I don't think that they're that much better in WT, I use the best possible settings and don't really see such a difference... Might be only me, but that's the point I understand the least.
The 20 levels/tiers/whatever compared to the 10 in WoT don't bother me at all. But I like the tech tree here much more as I can research whatever module I want when I want compared to the fixed path in WT. And it might be again just me, but I have no idea where I can see my progress concerning those modules in WT  :hiding:

Ziddix #8 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:27 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17501 battles
  • 1,801
  • [LEOFL] LEOFL
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
I don't really like the idea of having combined battles between tanks and aircraft. The air combat bit in War Thunder is pretty cool though, I like that bit more than WoWP.

Combatbacon #9 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:29 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21800 battles
  • 206
  • Member since:
    01-21-2013
The point of stying alive with single vehicle would become pointless if option to choose another vehicle to same battle would be allowed in WoT, it would change nature of the current game completely or they would have to design another game mode.
It's really not fun to be ground target for bombers.

Golem501 #10 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:30 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21051 battles
  • 1,844
  • [BOBS_] BOBS_
  • Member since:
    01-20-2013
I already play warthunder every now and then... usually if I am seriously playing like a total ass (you know staying on a flank alone in a medium while all team goes to the other flank... stuff like that 3 or 4 games in a row) and I am getting my arse handed to me in tanks , I jump over to fly planes and make sure that even if I play like crap I don't drag down the team because rewards are based on personal results, not on team results.

Vogelhund #11 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13391 battles
  • 541
  • Member since:
    01-29-2011
I dont like WT luckshots kill with one shell no skill required.

Better HP system with module damage.

Kaiter #12 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:41 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 14286 battles
  • 73
  • Member since:
    04-09-2012
As I read in FTR, during 2014 wot is going to improve graphics and physics. Plus historical battles, I wont miss that other game..  :ohmy:

Nekomancer #13 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:43 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 11526 battles
  • 3,065
  • Member since:
    02-20-2010
Well, let's hope that War Thunder Ground Forces are a success, that can only lead to a better World of Tanks too. Why, some of you may ask? Because at the moment World of Tanks is unrivaled and has no competition. But, competition is the one thing that keeps a company improving their products and services.
Just take a look at what new stuff and features Steam got after Origin went live, just to stay ahead.
A healthy competition means there can be only one winner, the player. It does not matter if it's a War Thunder or a World of Tanks player because Gaijin and Wargaming will try to improve their products to win more players over. That means we get better and more refined products that are more enjoyable to play in the long run.

Edited by Nekomancer, 09 October 2013 - 10:46 AM.


mad0mat #14 Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:43 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 14544 battles
  • 2,208
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-21-2012
This presentation was a bad thing in my opinion. I really like to see what's going on, but after seeing this alpha I am disgusted. That was my mistake to watch it. They have plenty to do before I will consider playing even one round of War Thunder tanks. Now it doesn't even looks promising. Only GFX are good and that's not a thing I am looking in MMO's. Well it is good to have nice eyecandy, but that's not a selling factor for me. For now it looks too much like sh*tty arcade game ( there was Panzer Elite continuation that looks practically the same as mechanics goes) with planes close to old arty of WoT - hide and camp games...

Khazzadumm #15 Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:00 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6579 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011
Thanks for the feedback guys, i basically agree that with competition, wg/wot can only improve. It remainy to be seen what will become of both games. In the end if there is not one, but two good tank games, i'm not the ne to complain :).

K_A #16 Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13626 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013
The two games, as far as what can be understood by watching the vids from WT Ground Forces, will be completely different in character. War Thunder won't have any camo mechanics like WoT has, instead you actually just have to see the tank on your screen and you can shoot at it, but unlike WoT you don't get the outlines of enemies from behind bushes or trees. This in turn, in my mind, will favour those with powerful machines capable of running maxed out full HD graphics on a big screen compared to say me, playing on a 15" laptop screen and a low/mid-end CPU and GPU getting acceptable frame rates in WoT with mostly low settings..

Lemmingtrain #17 Posted 10 October 2013 - 01:07 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 1847 battles
  • 785
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-24-2012
More gameplay details from a 2nd Developer interview posted on the WT forums.  It seems possible that CBT may open in a few days but this has not been confirmed.

1. Will there be joint battles of planes, tanks and ships?
Apart from the fact that this is one of the key elements of our game - we are trying to have all kinds of armed forces on one map because not having them all on one map would only strengthen the myth that it is impossible to do. Now you could see for yourselves that it can be done in our game.

2. What factors affect the tank controls?
We're still working on it. Underneath the easy controls is a very advanced physics, i.e if you are trying to climb a steep hill with your tank and you just don't have enough horsepower, then... you know what happens, the tank will stop, that's why you should try to move with slalom etc.

3. How accurate are places of armor penetration?
The tank is presented with the use of few hundred parts, like engine, gearbox, rollers, crew, turret steering mechanism and other mechanical parts. The armor has its thickness, angle, in same cases a tank turret has armor with different thickness (layered armor), it can be presented with one or few blocks, we are trying to reproduce all this geometry.

4. How much will the tanks resemble their real life counterparts?
One of the key elements of design in our project is to have all the characteristics of combat vehicles as close to reality as possible. You can find many tanks in our game, some of them don't exist anymore, but this is not as important as the plans that are easier to work on, but for example the sounds are recorded from real tanks.

5. What shells and what ways of replenishing ammunition will be available ingame?
Most tanks that were presented during Igromir have AP rounds, HE rounds and APCR rounds. Everything is realistic because different tanks have different amounts of ammunition. In AB mode the ammo reload will be probably automatic while in HB you will have to return to spawn area.

6. How interactive are the surroundings?
Rocks or bunkers are hard to destroy. Elements of topology such as rocks, bunkers are objects that you can hide behind, they are indestructible, while objects like shacks, fences and trees can be destroyed without problems.

7. Will there be a cooperation between different kinds of forces?
Right now during presentation the artillery is indestructible on purpose, normally tanks, planes etc. will be able to destroy it... (incomprehensible).

8. What will be the differences between different classes of tanks?
Combat tasks of different kinds of tanks were different, if you don't take it under consideration then you think that i.e. a light tank is way worse than medium tank - it is faster but it dies easier, it has worse armament and is worse in general, but it's purpose was different. It is a fast vehicle whose tasks were to infiltrate the defenses, catch the infantry, take some position. In our game we balance it with the fact that light tanks can call artillery barrage. It's a class ability, light tanks can call artillery, each light tank has its own artillery support. Light tank can find the enemy, come closer to him and call artillery strike on enemy's position, it can also mark it which will make the enemy visible to allied planes. Normally the planes can't see the markers of enemy vehicles - it is very hard to spot a tank in the forest, light tanks make it easier.

9. How will the battles of tanks and planes be balanced?
We will experiment, test different ways of balancing such battles, it requires some decisions, research, we have different variants. We already found one type of battles - city fights and fights in forest areas where tanks feel more comfortable, they can still be destroyed by planes but it happens way less often.

10. How will the roles be divided between ground and air forces?
Ground forces will be taking strategic locations while air forces will provide air support and destroy enemy airfield which will lead to achieving air domination. The battle can be won by taking strategic points but the air forces will have direct influence on that.

11. Will there be a limit of number of planes and tanks in battle?
In current mode (AB), it's possible to spawn multiple times. While the enemies pick on their own, you will be able to see what your teammates pick and pik your vehicle accordingly to have a balanced team. I don't want to reveal the specifics now, but there will be some mechanisms enforcing balanced teams (i.e you will not be able to spawn heavy bombers with entire team at the start of the match).

12. What kinds of Ground Forces will be presented ingame?
Heavy tanks, medium tanks, light tanks, tank destroyers, AA artillery operated by players probably after OBT(?) or after launch (of tanks), but it is planned.

13. How will the AA artillery be presented ingame?
Just as it was in real life, and it was different at times. In real life timers had to be set to define the time of shell explosion, whereas on ships it was done automatically, the Germans used shells with radar that exploded near airplanes, but usually timers had to be set manually depending on the altitude of targets. We still don't know how this will work in our game.  In general we did not want to make AA artillery but it turned out that tanks have big chances of shooting down heavy planes, right now heavy bombers are being destroyed by tanks more often than the other way around. It wasn't like that in real life, but in real life bombers weren't flying at the altitude of 300m in order to drop bombs, also, the 3rd person view ingame provides much better field of view.

14. What will be the size of maps?
The map that was presented was 30 x 30 km or 35x35 km, I can't recall correctly. We don't plan to have maps bigger than 50x50 km. Actually we consider implementing some limits because right now you can just desert - hop into a tank and drive god knows where.

15. What will be the distance between tank spawn areas?
In current version I think its 2 km. We will work on that, it will depend on the speed of tanks and density of vegetation.

16. How long does it take to fly to the enemy airfield?
It depends on the airplane, 3 - 4 minutes on average.

Khazzadumm #18 Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:33 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6579 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011
Sooo, a number of elements are same/simmilar to wot,  in my opinion wg ahould for starters
1. Upgrade the engine which it is thankfully going to.
2. Increase map size and add aditionall elements such as weather which has an influence on visibility and.accuracy and.parhaps even some ai elements (guns in bunkers firing on one team, ai controlled trucks/cars.
3. add more gameplay modes/goals (escort/protect a convoy, multi layerd base capture meaning capping more smaller bases before capping the main one).
4. Lower peemiuk content prices (this is inevitable when wt will have 25 gold and wg 35-50.

With theese measures, wot would aureley become a lot more cometitive.

_Bugii_ #19 Posted 05 November 2013 - 05:47 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17791 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    10-17-2012

View PostKhazzadumm, on 09 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

it's more historically accurate (no prototypes and ''make believe'' tanks), has better graphics and historically accurate battles.

Apparently, the main things WarThunder has going for it are bigger tech trees ( 20lvls to wot's 10lvls) meaning faster grind, more realism/ emphasis on simulation compared to WoT's arcade style, matchmaking that isn't ''broken'', a better arty system.


I don't think this could work very well.
If it was historicaly accurate, usa would have shermans where germany has tigers.
It wouldnt be fair play. (If they move tiger a few tiers up, it wont be historicaly accurate anymore.)
German arms were far more superior, one of the most important things that lead to their destruction was lack of money - they didnt have enough resources to produce even more tanks. Where us ary used like 4-5 shermans to get one tiger. Resource costs will not be concern in a vieo game.
Just my opinion.

_PapaSmurf_ #20 Posted 05 November 2013 - 06:37 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 347 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    07-31-2013

View PostKhazzadumm, on 09 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

This could cause as much as a third of WoT players to cross over to WT.

Where did you pull that stat from??
I cannot abide by people throwing out stats that they simply invent on the spot.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users